Zen Buddhism aims at making us intuitive

Without the intuition of our true nature or kenshō there is no Zen Buddhism.  It all rests upon intuition:  that extraordinary moment when all our presuppositions and ideas are emptied out.  Only then are we open enough to have kenshō.

A significant part of Zen Buddhism aims at making us intuitive; not filling our heads with just words and concepts but going much further and deeper.  In the words of  Sixin Wuxin 死心悟新,

“As your self-reflection grows deeper and deeper, the moment will surely come upon you when the spiritual flower will suddenly burst into bloom, illuminating the entire universe.  The experience is incommunicable, though you yourselves know perfectly well what it is.”

How can we know this sublime depth of which Sixin Wuxin speaks without intuiting it directly?  The short answer is that we can’t.  This is why Zen seems so strange to many people because Zen is teaching those who decide to follow it how to be intuitive and that is not an easy subject to teach or learn.

When we decide to learn Zen it is somewhat like trying to remember what we have completely forgotten in the example of a person whose name we can't remember even though we are standing right in front of them.  The harder we try to remember the more difficult it becomes to remember until we just have to quit trying! 

By comparison, Sōtõ Zen’s just sitting (sitting for its own sake) must be viewed as an oversimplification of Zen Buddhism:  a reduction of its real practice which is intuition, putting it into a single uncomplicated physical exercise.  Such a practice gives rise to wrong views about Zen which only serve to obscure the meaning of Zen.  Only when Zen’s path is related to intuition, not just sitting, does Zen become Zen.  Only then can we understand the teachings of the past Zen masters and the Buddha.

Comments

[clyde]

I’ll let your words stand, but thank you for your metta bhavana.

p.s: I practice meditation regularly, mostly shikantaza. In addition to metta bhavana, do you practice other forms of meditation?

[n. yeti]

Clyde:

I have already done those things, I don't know why you have such a problem understanding that. It is very clear you don't know shit from shinola when it comes to Zen. I am glad you found a social group that gives you a sense of being part of the Zen tradition, but that has nothing to do with real Zen, which is and only ever has been about one thing: Mind. That is the only thing and that is not found in any Zen center, which has only weighed you down with more concepts and attachments. I continue to do metta bhavana on your behalf but your pride and ignorance are very great and time, my friend, is running out. Littering the world with bumper stickers (which is a sign of greed though you don't realize it) won't save you from an unfortunate destiny, nor will stirring up quarrels here. Only dhyana can help you. Since you can't even back up your eel words with a credible reply, and persist in believing your own falsehoods even when confronted about them, I presume we are done here.

[clyde]

Yeti, Let’s not argue about “actual Zen Buddhist”. I told you, (virtually) visit a Zen sangha and attend a Zen service of sitting and then listening to a Dharma talk. Depending on the sangha, there may be chanting and/or prostrations, etc.

Then let’s talk about Zen Buddhists.

[TheZennist]

Clyde: "The earliest know reference to the notion of the Mind to Mind transmission goes back to an epitaph for the monk Fa-ju (638–689). The epitaph reads: "The transmission [of the teaching] in India was fundamentally without words, [so that] entrance into this teaching is solely [dependent on] the transmission of mind" (Kenneth Kraft, Eloquent Zen, page 99).

The transmission is still a spiritual transmission that was beyond the reach and range of language. Even thought was not involved in the transmission. Thought is just a solidification of spirit/Mind. Mind transcends awareness including any kind of human mental process (manas).

[n. yeti]

Zennist:

I don't know if you are familiar with the work of Griffith Foulk who has looked into the question of paper transmission in Ch'an.

From a paper of his linked below: "In medieval China, Chan Buddhists established a unique image of their tradition to represent its difference from and superiority to other forms of Buddhism, particularly scholastic Buddhism. This image portrayed Chan as the vehicle by which the supreme mind-dharma had been transmitted separately from the scriptural vehicle. Chan Buddhists even attempted to legitimize that image by developing special episodes, episodes that attribute its origin to the Buddha Sakyamuni's transmission of the mind-dharma to his disciple Mahalagyapa. As previous scholarship has shown, these episodes came in for criticism not only from Chan's arch-rival, the doctrinal (C. Jiao; K. Kyo) school, but also from within the Chan school itself. (1) Nonetheless, they were believed to be historical or quasi-historical facts by most Chan adherents and even tacitly accepted by some doctrinal exegetes. These episodes thus succeeded in justifying the Chan claim to the legitimacy and authority of its own lineage and served as a basis for the privileges the Chan school enjoyed during the Song dynasty (960-1279)."

Song Tientai Master Fadeng in 1194 questioned specifically the various versions of the recorded Vulture Peak transmission: sharing the seat, twirling the flower, etc. He wrote:

"According to some explanations, when the World-Honored One transmitted the robe, that was the transmission of dharma. Others say, "When the World-Honored One entered nirvana, Kasyapa arrived later and the Buddha displayed both his feet; that was the transmission of dharma." When we examine these two explanations, however, they only have to do with external signs. How could these signs possibly be the mark of the dharma that is transmitted?"

So, we see even in Medieval China there was considerable doubt about this question. On one hand we have hagiography and attempts to legitimize Ch'an lineages in an effort to garner prestige and patronage in Confucian China (which was very concerned about ancestral lineages in general); and, more importantly for the religious question, there were doubts about what was actually transmitted and how could this be known via external signs. Notably, Fadeng argued that the transmission of Ch'an mind to mind could not actually be separate from the dharma recorded in the scriptures -- most particularly the Lotus Sutra revered by Tientai.

I mention this because my original comment was specifically in mention to the tendencies of modern Western Zen students to concern themselves with externalism, define their practice externally, and generally engage in dualistic concepts related to what is or is not Zen, which ultimately become obstacles to practice, especially due to the greatly diminished quality of both students and teachers (so many of whom have disgraced their lineages) in our present demonic age of the Dharma's decline.

Here is the source:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Three+places+of+mind-transmission%3a+the+polemical+application+of...-a0366865726